Drought and ballooning water prices force wine growers to leave vineyards behind
Growers fear the soaring price on the water market will be the "nail in the coffin" for the industry.
The low returns have been caused by a mixture of environmental and market conditions, including tariffs, a decline in wine drinkers and frost.
A worldwide oversupply of red wine has also seen prices offered for shiraz, cabernet and merlot plummet to record lows.
As drought continues to plague parts of southern Australia, growers are now faced with the increasingly tough reality of supply and demand on the water market.
Growers are finding themselves needing more water to keep their crops viable during dry conditions as well as paying more to lease the finite resource.
Some have told the ABC they have had to use 30 per cent more water, with prices as high as $350 a megalitre, and fear further rises could be on the horizon.
Data by water consultancy Ricardo Group showed temporary water prices reached up to $350 per megalitre in the past year.
Ricardo Group Market leads associate director Ben Williams said water trade prices fluctuated between $280 to $330 per megalitre between May and June.
Prices were higher than the average water price in the lower Murray over the past decade, which sat around $200 per megalitre.
Loveday grower Jim Giahgias is among growers feeling the impact of rising water prices, despite owning some permanent water rights.
He has been forced to rely on the temporary water market — where water can be bought, sold and traded based on demand — which has seen prices increase partly due to the drought.
It has left Mr Giahgias contemplating to pull out some of his red grape vines to cut costs, as he battles with the perception that grape growers are "millionaires".
He said he wanted consumers to know while they might pay $50 a bottle at a restaurant, the grower does not see the profits.
He explained the 20-cent gross amount did not account for farmers expenses, including water, leaving them "$150 a tonne out of pocket".
While he said he found it difficult having to buy more water the situation was "a lot more dire" for those who leased every drop.
Farmers in the Murray-Darling without permanent water rights, or those who do not own enough, rely on buying water from the temporary market.
The longer it does not rain, the more water people need to buy, causing a spike in both demand and temporary water prices.
In 2019-2021 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) conducted a water markets inquiry, following irrigators' claims that non-farming investors have driven up the price they pay for water.
Since then, a Water Markets Intermediaries Code has been developed, and has partially come into effect from this month, regulating how eligible intermediaries water markets conduct themselves with current and proposed clients.
Riverland Winegrape Growers Association board member Jack Papageorgiou said the situation on the ground was "serious" for those totally reliant on the market.
He said some growers had inadvertently used more water than they were allowed, due to the dry conditions, and had no funds to balance their accounts.
There are significant penalties for water overuse in South Australia, which has forced water suppliers to clamp down on growers who cannot pay their bills.
Suppliers to Riverland growers include the Renmark and Central Irrigation Trusts, which are collectives of irrigators and farmers who share water supply infrastructure.
CIT chief executive officer Greg McCarron said water supplies were only locked as a "last resort" to avoid exposing the collective to large fines.
"Non-compliance from farmers … can result in us not being able to balance our water accounts with the state government and face significant overuse fines," he said.
A Department for Environment and Water spokesperson said no water overuse penalties had been issued in the 2024-25 financial year.
The spokesperson said penalties were "at least three times higher than the price of purchasing water on the water market" and could be higher in the River Murray.
For growers like Amanda Dimas, who has already replaced vines in favour of more profitable varieties, the uncertainty of the water market remained troubling.
"Growers are really struggling, their mental health isn't good."
She called for government support to assist growers wanting to transition to other crops or exit the industry completely.
"Vines are one of the hardest things to remove, they are so costly," Ms Dimas said.
It costs about $7,000 per hectare to remove vines, partly because the treated pine posts are difficult to dispose of.
Mr Giahgias said the only way for the industry to "survive and move forward" was to pull grape varieties which were no longer profitable.
"We can't take anymore, we're at breaking point now," he said.
"If the decision is to remove vineyards, to help the industry, I believe it has to be legislated … one grower can't be pulling while the other is planting."
State Primary Industries Minister Clare Scriven said the state government was investing in ongoing work examining wine grape growers' transition.
"Some of the funded work has been around what alternative crops might look like or what alternative varieties may look like," Ms Scriven said.
As a member of the National Wine Working Group, she said some of the group's recommendations were a need for "structural changes" within the industry.
"It's not necessarily a matter of government intervention, it's a matter of industry continuing to work through the issues."
Ms Scriven said exit packages were not receiving "a great deal of support" at a state or federal government level, referencing the 1980s vine pull scheme as an example.
"That sort of government intervention can have absolutely unintended consequences, which could make it worse for growers rather than better."
Riverland Wine general manager Alexandra Cannon said financial support for growers to leave the industry was essential.
The International Organisation of Vine and Wine's latest data showed the global vineyard area reduced for a fourth consecutive year.
Spain and France are some of the world's largest wine grape growing countries and are among those ripping out vines.
In France, the government launched a 120 million euro ($215.6 million) scheme to remove up to 30,000 acres of vineyards last year.
Growers were offered a financial incentive of 4,000 euros ($7,190) per hectare.
Mr Giahgias said similar subsidies were needed in Australia but felt growers were unheard, describing the situation at 'stalemate'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Bigger properties occupied by smaller households in major housing mismatch, Cotality finds
In a reminder of how broken housing affordability and access is, new analysis highlights a major mismatch between the size of Australian homes and the number of people living in them. While the vast bulk of Australian housing is built for larger families, property research firm Cotality has found more than 60 per cent of households are made up of just one or two people. It reveals a misalignment between "who lives in our homes and the kinds of homes we're building", Cotality's head of head of Australian research Eliza Owen said in the report. "Of the lone-person households in Australia, the data suggests around 40 per cent are aged 65 and over," Ms Owen said. "The highest share of households is two people, but the highest share of housing has three bedrooms. "While there's nothing wrong with more bedrooms than people in a dwelling, there could be some inefficiencies in the way housing is being allocated," Ms Owen said. "After all, a 'traditional' family of four may have more need for a three-bedroom dwelling than a household of two people." The report cited data from the 2021 Census, which showed there were more two-person family households in three-bedroom dwellings (about 1.3 million), than three or four-person family households (about 1.1 million). Ms Owen has suggested a way to fix the "efficiency question", which she knows is not politically appealing — send a price signal. "Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than you need, and cheaper to live in smaller housing," she wrote in her research note. She said that logic often leads to calls for tax reform including abolishing stamp duty to cheaper to move between housing, replacing it with a broad-based land tax (which raises costs the more land you own). "These options are both politically difficult as it would involve moving from a tax that applies to a small amount of voters each year who purchase property to one that will tax two thirds of voters (property owners)," she noted. Independent housing researcher Cameron Kusher, speaking to The Business in July, argued high transaction costs, namely stamp duty, discourage moving to a "better sized property" and can lead to people purchasing larger homes than they need to begin with. "People just feel like if I can get a better and bigger home sooner, that's a better outcome," he said. "If we look at what is being built, it's usually very large houses, four or five bedrooms, taking up most of the land on these new housing sites," Mr Kusher said. "A lot of it comes down to how much a piece of a property, [and] how much the land and the house, costs. "I think a lot of people are building bigger homes, thinking 'I'll spend a little bit more up-front and my family will grow into this home'. "It might just be a couple grandkids, or they're planning to have a couple of kids." He noted the effects of rapidly increasing property prices, which can leave people priced out of re-entering the market, and the fact that larger properties can be more likely to appreciate in value at a faster pace. Cotality's Ms Owen said other policy options to encourage people to move into appropriately sized homes could include reforming pension asset tests to include the value of the family home. "Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in our larger cities, that can accommodate smaller households. "But shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these new homes." The government has accepted it is not on track to meet the target to build 1.2 million homes in five years, but Treasurer Jim Chalmers has stood by the ambition, despite Treasury advice it would not be met. In another recent note, Ms Owen questioned the focus of state and federal governments on speeding up building approvals to boost housing supply, warning that the construction industry simply cannot keep pace. "With completion times already above average and construction costs elevated, it seems an odd time to be incentivising more dwelling approvals and commencements," she said. Cameron Kusher argued past experience could be a guide on how to approach today's housing problems and ease the construction crunch. "Maybe we need to go back to how things were 30 or 40 years ago, where you have smaller homes and you make them easy to renovate," he told The Business. "Over time, people can actually add bedrooms, bathrooms, car parks, verandahs and all these sorts of things to add value to the home.
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Productivity summit ends day two with progress on rules changes to boost housing supply
Rules holding back superannuation funds from investing potential billions of dollars into housing and renewables projects could face a shake up, after broad agreement at Canberra's productivity roundtable that there is a need for change. Super funds are required to meet a "performance benchmark", under laws designed to ensure funds are performing and maintaining the retirement savings of their members. But critics have said the rules around those benchmarks discourage investment in some assets, including a rule that requires stamp duty to be disclosed as a fee in a way that they say discourages housing investment. The government flagged it was seeking to rewrite the benchmark after a 2023 review similarly found it could unintentionally be discouraging investment in some assets. Rebecca Mikula-Wright, who heads the Investor Group on Climate Change, said there had been broad agreement at this week's summit that changing those rules could accelerate housing and renewables investment. "The Your Future Your Super performance benchmark was discussed a lot in the session I was in yesterday, and really around how that is constraining the ability of super funds to invest in higher risk projects they really want to invest into," Ms Mikula-Wright told the ABC. 'The treasurer did indicate he is likely to revisit those reforms." After a day of talks focused on finding agreement on one of the thorniest issues impacting housing and the environment — Australia's "broken" environmental approvals process — Treasurer Jim Chalmers expressed his pleasure at the "real prospect of a useful consensus" emerging on some of the country's key economic challenges. "Day two of the reform roundtable was really dominated by how we can boost housing supply, how we can responsibly reduce and improve regulation and speed up approvals," Mr Chalmers said. "I'm really encouraged by the consensus in the room for economic reform in these areas, and we're enthusiastic about some of the policies that participants put on the table." Ms Mikula-Wright said there had also been good support for a Productivity Commission recommendation to establish a "strike team" that could land faster approvals for key infrastructure projects, particularly around renewables. "We're competing with markets that are getting projects up faster and cheaper, so we have to do the same. Then we can attract more capital and get those projects rolling out," she said. After warnings from Housing Minister Clare O'Neil that red tape was dragging down housing approvals — and leaked Treasury documents indicating the government was considering a pause on the National Construction Code — attendees also agreed such a move should take place. The National Construction Code lays out minimum requirements for buildings on everything from fire exits and accessibility to insulation and capacity for electric vehicle chargers. But while changes to safety standards could continue, attendees discussed possible pauses on "non-essential" rules of the construction code, such as new requirements to lift energy efficiency standards. New South Wales Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said a pause on the code was needed, though the finer details were being worked through. "The pause is something that is where the conversation was concentrated on. In terms of how long it needs to be paused, who would do the review, what's the terms of reference, that work can be pursued," he said, "I think we will have a few more conversations at the roundtable and beyond to sort out those levels of detail." The ABC understands the government hopes to move fast on a pause, and not have discussions drag out for several months. After two successive terms of government failing to find a path through the thicket of reform on Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, attendees of today's roundtable were cautiously welcoming what appeared to be some progress. The complicated laws govern the environmental approval process for major projects, such as energy and mining projects, as well as housing and other developments where they potentially impact threatened species or significant cultural sites. But a major review of those decades-old laws published in 2020 concluded that they were no longer working for business or the environment — a view that today's roundtable attendees were agreed on. However, attempts under former environment minister Tanya Plibersek to update the laws were abandoned before the federal election — with a key sticking point being a plan to introduce a federal watchdog that could independently monitor EPBC approvals. Mining and other business groups did not support that proposed Environmental Protection Agency. But after extended talks today, they left saying they would be prepared to support an EPA, with a caveat that the final say would rest with the environment minister. There are still devils in the detail, including a desire from environment groups to see the EPA also given final approval powers on projects. But it marks the first significant advancement in EPBC discussions since they stalled last term. Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive, Kelly O'Shanassy, said there was agreement in the room that an EPA was needed but there remained different views on how it should operate. "There is a lot of support for efficient decision making, transparent decision making, accountability — that is not the current process," Ms O'Shanassy said. "You need to have an independent regulator that is held to account for the speed of its decisions and the quality of its decisions." Business Council of Australia chief executive, Bran Black, said a federal EPA should effectively be set-up in the same way as existing state-based authorities. "We take the view that it's really important to have a separation between the entity that is ultimately responsible for compliance and the entity that's ultimately responsible for approvals," Mr Black said. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to go down the path of creating multiple bodies at all [but] the government has committed to a new EPA. It's made it very clear, that's a point that it's taken to two elections now." "The question then is: what does this EPA do?" Environment Minister Murray Watt said, however, there was strong support around the table for "stronger" environmental protections and "faster and simpler" project approvals, through a more transparent process for businesses. "These are objectives our government supports, but we will ultimately need support across the parliament for reform. It was therefore very useful for the shadow treasurer, as a roundtable participant, to hear the depth of support for change," Senator Watt said. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said the Coalition was willing to work constructively with the government to see reforms to the environment laws passed.
ABC News
8 hours ago
- ABC News
The businesses abandoning America over US tariffs
Australian businesses are halting exports to the US, as the Trump administration closes a tax loophole for low-cost goods entering America on August 29.
